the elusive “editor” at CRN posted an article about the largest 100 churches in America. Among the list of mega-churches was good ol’ Johnny Mac and Grace Community Church with an impressive membership of 7,500.  I wonder if CRN applies all of their “research” on megachurches to them as well?
This entry was posted
on Wednesday, October 10th, 2007 at 1:16 am and is filed under Linked Articles.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
![Image of The Prodigal God (An Unabridged Production)[2-CD Set]; Recovering the Heart of the Christian Faith](http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/31Jl6fhDLxL._SL75_.jpg "The Prodigal God (An Unabridged Production)[2-CD Set]; Recovering the Heart of the Christian Faith")
45 Comments(+Add)
Isn’t the argument the fact that the gospel is being compromised by many of these megachurches in an effort to bring as many people in as possible? The gospel and its demands have been heavily diluted because it doesn’t make for good marketing in the eyes of the “unchurched” (whoever came up with that term??).
The point of the post looks to be a critique on how ridiculous things have become when we begin actually ranking churches based on attendance. Think about the message this sends and how pointless it is.
Secondly, how does John MacArthur water down or compromise the gospel?
All you’re doing is trying to make a stretch (the same thing you accuse others of) by your post. Nice attempt.
By the way, your link to “research” is somewhat defeating to your attempt as it gives credible witness to what’s wrong with most of these “churches”
Paul,
So let me get this straight. Johnny Mac ministers at a large church and that’s good, everyone else ministers at a large church and its bad.
Just so we’re clear.
Tim,
That would be because Johnny’s church is comprised of “real” Christians, whereas all the others are just “fake” Christians resultant from watered-down messages.
Tim,
To set you even straighter, John MacArthur preaches a more orthodox Christianity despite his ministering at a large church. Just because you have an orthodox preacher amongst the mega-church list doesn’t mean they are all orthodox.
TB,
I think the between the lines point here is that – church size really has nothing to do with being orthodox or unorthodox, and that carping on mega-churches as having obviously ’sold out’ as evidenced by their size is disingenuous if you’re unwilling to apply the same logic to folks you idolize, like JMac.
As I look down the list, I see a number of solid churches there – in fact, probably most of them. I suspect the ratio would not change if the list was made up of a random sampling of churches ranging from 50-150 members.
Timothy,
Oh, he’s more orthodox, I see, now it becomes clear.
Actually, what becomes clear is that you agree with Johnnie Mac and so the standards you hold him to are different than what you set up for everyone else. Also, I’d be shocked if you were familiar with the theology and methodology of 10% of the other churches on that list.
Just be honest Tim and say “I like Johnnie Mac’s church because I agree and identify with him, and I don’t like any other large church because I haven’t invested any portion of my identity with them”.
Somthing I found interesting is that 47 of the 100 are non-denominational, and that the next leading “denomination” had 10 churches in the list. Having always held skepticism toward churches with a national heirarchy to decide on denominational belief, this was heartening, indeed…
Tim, I never said that at all. BTW I am not a John MacArthur fan (I’ve read one of his books and heard him preach a handful of times). He doesn’t come across as a compromiser.
On the other hand, you have the largest church on the list. Unfortunately, the gospel is compromised in my view. In speaking with a friend the other day who attends a large church near Toronto, he confided that his pastor told him that if any persecution were to arise, 70% of the church would disappear. He was referring to his church, but that’s probably a fair assessment of Christianity as a whole (perhaps even very generous).
The point is, the gospel and the name of Jesus has largely become a product like any other, peddled for selfish interests and what I can get out of him. That’s the gospel that appeals to the average person and that’s what many churches are tapping into.
Tim Reed, the Reformed standards by which I hold John MacArthur to are the same for any other preacher. It’s just that a lot of the mega-churches’ pastors don’t hold up to that. Joel Osteen is a Word-Of-Faith adherent which used to be considered a cultish belief system some years ago. A lot of these other pastors have adopted seeker-sensitive, Purpose-Drivel, or Emergent tendencies. Some others are charismatics or Penecostal types. Others are of human potential types (Robert Schueller). Most, if not all, would fail biblical standards.
What’s this “identity” stuff? I don’t go around talking about how I ‘identify’ with this or that or share a portion of my ‘identity’. That’s not normal talk.
Paul,
I listen to a lot of podcast of a lot of sermons of a lot of large churches, and I don’t get that same sense.
A couple of questions, how do you see the gospel being “watered down”?
Give me some specific examples. Which preachers of which churches do you see this from, and what leads you to this conclusion?
Congratulations, you’ve turned the gospel into Calvinism. Way to add to the gospel.
It means that when I point out that Johnnie Mac used his position as a minister of the gospel to publish a poorly researched hatchet job full of half truths and gaps in logic in order to enrich himself you have an emotionally visceral reaction.
It seems your “elusive” editor hits the nail on the head with this follow-up post:
http://christianresearchnetwork.com/?p=3359
A question: can you honestly see the pastors in that list yoked together with those in Hebrews 11?
Tim, if you’ve listened to all the podcasts you claim (definitely more than me) and you still don’t see how the gospel has been watered down then I don’t know what to say!!!?!
But here’s a hint: this link provided in the original post points to a few good examples.
Maybe I should clarify why I wrote the post. I am tired of watchdoggies making blanket statements about mega-churches. If they are making these accusations, then they need to apply them to Johnny Mac as well.
Paul,
I’m asking you specifically, how is the gospel being watered down. That post you linked to doesn’t provide examples for today, nor does it even go into what “eager fawning at the feet of the world’s great” means. You’ve provided a conclusion in your comment (the gospel is being watered down), now I’m asking you to provide some premises which is supposed to go before the conclusions.
Paul,
What exactly was Tozer’s context, and when were his writings added to scripture? Perhaps you need to read yesterday’s article.
TB,
Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that most, if not all, would fail your extra-biblical standards (such as adhering to Calvinist/Reformed theology).
I’ve not heard anyone on this site speak out in support of Word-Faith, but I only see a couple (yes, one is #1) on that list. On the other hand, Purpose Driven – despite all of the “Truly Reformed” (TR) nattering – does not necessarily equate to “watered down gospel”. A rather large number of churches – including several on the list – have used PD methodologies without ‘watering down’ the gospel. Contrary to popular TR belief, you don’t have to talk about sin/hell/judgement every X number of weeks for people to understand how it fits into the big picture. Playing music written in the past 10 years does not subtract from the gospel. Meeting in a movie theater instead of a church building does not water down the gospel. Structuring the weekly gatherings of the church in such a way so as to not drive ’seekers’ away due to method (not message) does not ‘water down the gospel’.
Last time I checked, God was the one to judge who is a ‘true’ Christian and who is a ‘false’ one, and the rest of us are to toil on in the fields given us, proclaiming the gospel with our lives – heart, soul, mind and strength.
Tim Reed, to me Calvinism is derived from the Bible. So there are no “additions” to the gospel.
Your foaming at the mouth reaction to my calling you out on your use of obfusicating language indicates insecurity within you on your non-biblical belief system. The more error within your theological belief system, the more obfusicating your language becomes.
TB,
Wow – you need to meet up with TJ…
“foaming at the mouth”, “obfuscating language” – you must be reading a different thread than this one…
Contrary to Spurgeon, Calvinism is not the gospel – it is a system which explains some things and fails in others.
TB,
\
Congrats, you’ve basically anathematized every Christian who came before Calvin. Its a shame the gospel wasn’t discovered until 1500 years after Christ ascended.
Tim Reed, not ‘every’ one. Just the popes and Jesuits and other creepy crawlies.
TB,
Wrong. You just stated that Calvinism=gospel. Does the gospel save? If so then you anathematized everyone before Calvin and most of those today who call on the name of Christ.
Trying to get my thinking straight here: CRN posted a link to an article on Townhall.com written by a Paul Edwards.Paul Edwards article links a list of the “100 Largest Churches for 2007″ (published in Outreach Magazine). By implication (I don’t see a direct statement) of an “accompanying piece” in the Outreach Magazine article, Mr. Edwards corralates the size of a church to its willingness to entice unregenerate people to attend by means such as “our words, our Power Point presentation, the lighting in the room, or the professional signage throughout the building.”CRN.Info contributor Nathan (not to be confused with CRN contributor “elusive editor”) then asks “I wonder if CRN applies all of their “research†on megachurches to [Grace Community Church] as well?Chris L states:
A few thoughts here:
– What defines a “megachurch?”, i.e. what level of attendance?
– I think the connection made by Mr. Edwards is rough. I think there are SOME churches in the list that fit his assumption.
– Some small churches can (and are) just as guilty of utilizing the techniques/methods outlined by Mr. Edwards, supported by the first part of Chris L’s statement.
– I’m not sure how much blame we can place on CRN for Mr. Edward’s “research.”
– Looking at the list, out of the first 20 churches listed, I would categorize six of them as having “sold out” in more ways than one.
– re: Size/number in attendance, I’m reminded of a quote attributed to J. Vernon McGee: “Just because you have a majority, sometimes just means you have a lot of idiots gathered in the same place.”
– Nathan, I probably would have passed on this one, but that’s me.
Just thinking out loud (and trying to do it more calmly for Tim’s sake).
Parenthetically: I really don’t care one way or the other, but I think CRN’s “editor” purposely remains “anonymous” because he/she knows it bothers some people.
Tim Reed, everybody but you know that I’m not saying that Calvinism equals the gospel. Oh, man, you are some torch for the Emergent church, aren’t ya? I have never met a more intent-twister than you. And I would say that to your face! Give me your address!
Mine is 406 West Court, Apt. #1, Virginia Beach VA
Sorry about the run-on paragraph at the beginning of my post. I was trying to use a bulleted list, but obviously didn’t get my tags closed correctly.
TB,
Absolute garbage. After I wrote that you had added to the gospel you wrote this:
If that isn’t equating Calvinism with the gospel, then what is?
What do you think ‘derived’ means???? Derived doesn’t mean the ’same as’ !!!
TB,
What does “there are no additions to the gospel” mean? Is this another case of you Calvinists questioning the basic meaning of words? Like how “all” doesn’t really mean “all”? What does “no additions” in Calvitalk mean?
Again, you’re wrong if you peg me as a Calvinist/Reformed or whatever… neither am I am John MacArthur fan (though I respect him).
You’re correct: the Lord is the final judge. I’m not disputing that, but He didn’t leave us without the ability to sift truth from error, light from darkness.
That’s the falling down of mainstream Christianity today. It caters to a worldly mentality – no, in many cases it even goes beyond what is considered decent even by an ungodly person.
My comments above reflect the pointlessness of deriving a list of the 100 top-ANYTHING to do with Christianity. What does God see?
Despite religion being all over Israel in the time of Christ, Isaiah describes Him as “a root out of a dry ground.” In God’s eyes there was a famine and complete lack of anything remotely godly. In man’s eyes? Well, that’s another story and it actually led to Christ’s crucifixion in the end.
Paul C,
If you’re not actually going to bother to explain what you mean by “watered down gospel” or give specific examples of where you see it, perhaps you should avoid making public proclamations about the watered down gospel of churches.
Keith,
I suspect the same, which would be a micro-illustration of the macro problem at CRN – a willingness to sacrifice integrity in exchange for the opportunity to stick your thumb in someone else’s eye…
Keith,
Generally its defined as 1,000 attendees on a weekend.
Tim Reed, why should I waste anymore of my time with you?? You are not asking the questions in a sincere attempt to learn. If you really want to know, then ask a person who believes in Calvinism who has the high amount of learning as you do. Apparently, I’m too dumb for you. You won’t convince me, I won’t convince you. It’s supposed to be the Holy Spirit’s job anyway. I’m sorry for getting mad, you got the best of me, congrats.
TB,
The only thing I’m trying to do is to get you to see that lock step marching with Johnnie Mac has very little to do with faithfulness to the gospel.
I hate the labels but I am a full fledged Arminian. But I love lots of MacArthur’s ministry, it’s a shame it always goes back to election. THEY make it an incredible issue, not us. THEY are the ones who give testimony to an epiphany and claim everyone should have it. THEY claim to have a higher view of the Scriptures and God Himself. THEY claim to have captured the sovereignty of God through doctrine. THEY claim the reformation was to get rid of all the free will people. THEY claim that only the Calvinists see clearly the spiritual things.
The angry Calvinists have given the loving and humble Calvinists a bad name. They are not all like that, and some of the Godliest people I have ever know are Calvinists. But this new breed, well THEY are a breed unto themselves.
TR, look….
If John MacArthur was preaching in a way contrary to the gospel, I certainly would not recommend him. I don’t idolize him…I don’t even have a book authored by him nor any tapes of his preaching. But I have read online some of his stuff. I really didn’t know much about him until I learned of CRN and the various links on there.
“obfusicating language”
It could just be me; but is not using the word obfuscating; obfuscating?
The funny thing with you guys is that you’re just as (if not more) eager to throw around labels than the people you condemn. Both I and Timothy Bell have been accused of being John MacArthur fans/idolizers without the faintest shred of evidence. Don’t you find that odd?
“Don’t you find that odd? ”
A few things that I find odd…
1) “In God we Trust” on money. Actually I find that ironic.
2) Brittney Spears
3) The attraction/popularity of plastic footwear (Croc’s)
4) The “Ninja Christian” (see previous post)
5) Socialists that have bake sales (really I saw this once)
6) Tamela
7) Small Churches
9) The success of reality T.V. (which is the furthest thing from reality)
10) The disconnect between ODM’s and the real world.
Whoa,Whoa,Whoa,Whoa,Whoa,! #8 is an invaluable tool when you have three kids under 5! Don’t mess with the T.V. Cart Bubba, I will come for you.
Wow.
1. When the post is about the hypocrisy of standards that don’t apply to Johnny Mac when it’s convenient for ODM’s.
2. And people show up on the thread taking issue with the question at the heart of the post. (and describing people who don’t agree with them as “foaming at the mouth” and “needing to defend emergent”-which isn’t really an issue here in this post.)
(which is why does johnny mac get a pass when the OBJECTIVE STANDARD OF THE ODM’S IS: Big churches=watered down gospel)
3. People, right or wrong, assume you might feel a knee jerk need to defend the most reverend semi-gnostic pope of neo-fundamentalism. (I don’t like labeling, calling names, etc., but I had to give it a whirl…how does Ken do it? I just feel dirty after writing that. I can’t imagine keeping it up day after day.)
Anyway…
Hope that makes sense…
WOAH! WOAH! WOAH!
How did this get to all of this? I was simply stating that McArthur’s church is considered a “mega-church”. I then showed that CRN often paints mega-churches with a pretty broad brush. It was showing that by labeling all mega-churches as bad, they inevitably label some of their own bad.
This was not about theology or who is watering down th gospel.
So out of curiosity I just spent the last hour perusing the oneighty website. This is the high school ministry of JMacs church. All I can say is, I’m not certain how other ministries get labeled as “watered” down and this church gets a pass.
I particularly like the “Redneck” Christmas party photos.
Nathan,
I think that’s exactly what its about, after all the argument from watchdoggies is that big churches = watered down gospel.
Spurgeon’s church was packed. I could also say that the half empty reformed church down the street is in need of revival!
Rick,
The difference is that “watchdoggies” preach against those they disagree… Spurgeon preached about Jesus.
If we lift Him up all men will be drawn to Him… how cares about our churches and how big it is or not… Spurgeon’ church attracted people because he preached Jesus.
Mega Churches if understood are great “fish catchers” and the smaller churches benefit as some need to grow more in their faith and leave to seek out churches that go deeper.
I see this as some plant, some water but God makes things grow.
If the small churches (reformed) stayed the course on Jesus and loving people… and stopped preaching political sermons against the beloved hated group they are attacking that day, then I see people would be drawn to their church to find Jesus.
I am not saying that all mega churches attract people because they preach Jesus… often they are just more exciting… or as in the case, in a Roman Catholic area found that preaching against them made their church grow! (That is the heritage of JM’s church) In the past JM preached Jesus and his church grew… yet somewhere he decided to grow it more he needed enemies.
Both creating enemies and confusing excitement for the holy Spirit are wrong.
Be Blessed,
iggy